Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> writes:
> On 5/21/21 3:03 PM, Alex Bennée wrote: >> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> writes: >>> On 5/21/21 2:28 PM, Willian Rampazzo wrote: >>>> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:16 AM Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 20/05/2021 22.28, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>>>>> On 5/20/21 9:53 PM, Willian Rampazzo wrote: >>>>>>> Conceptually speaking, acceptance tests "are a series of specific tests >>>>>>> conducted by the customer in an attempt to uncover product errors before >>>>>>> accepting the software from the developer. Conducted by the end-user >>>>>>> rather >>>>>>> than software engineers, acceptance testing can range from an informal >>>>>>> “test drive” to a planned and systematically executed series of scripted >>>>>>> tests" [1]. Every time Pressman refers to the term "acceptance >>>>>>> testing," he >>>>>>> also refers to user's agreement in the final state of an implemented >>>>>>> feature. >>>>>>> Today, QEMU is not implementing user acceptance tests as described by >>>>>>> Pressman. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are other three possible terms we could use to describe what is >>>>>>> currently >>>>>>> QEMU "acceptance" tests: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1 - Integration tests: >>>>>>> - "Integration testing is a systematic technique for >>>>>>> constructing the >>>>>>> software architecture while at the same time conducting tests >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> uncover errors associated with interfacing. The objective is >>>>>>> to take >>>>>>> unit-tested components and build a program structure that has >>>>>>> been >>>>>>> dictated by design." [2] >>>>>>> * Note: Sommerville does not have a clear definition of >>>>>>> integration >>>>>>> testing. He refers to incremental integration of components >>>>>>> inside >>>>>>> the system testing (see [3]). >>>>> >>>>> After thinking about this for a while, I agree with you that renaming the >>>>> "acceptance" tests to "integration" tests is also not a good idea. When I >>>>> hear "integration" test in the context of the virt stack, I'd rather >>>>> expect >>>>> a test suite that picks KVM (i.e. a kernel), QEMU, libvirt and maybe >>>>> virt-manager on top and tests them all together. So we should look for a >>>>> different name indeed. >>>>> >>>>>>> 2 - Validation tests: >>>>>>> - "Validation testing begins at the culmination of integration >>>>>>> testing, >>>>>>> when individual components have been exercised, the software >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> completely assembled as a package, and interfacing errors >>>>>>> have been >>>>>>> uncovered and corrected. At the validation or system level, >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> distinction between different software categories disappears. >>>>>>> Testing >>>>>>> focuses on user-visible actions and user-recognizable output >>>>>>> from the >>>>>>> system." [4] >>>>>>> - "where you expect the system to perform correctly using a set >>>>>>> of test >>>>>>> cases that reflect the system’s expected use." [5] >>>>>>> * Note: the definition of "validation testing" from Sommerville >>>>>>> reflects >>>>>>> the same definition found around the Internet, as one of the >>>>>>> processes >>>>>>> inside the "Verification & Validation (V&V)." In this concept, >>>>>>> validation testing is a high-level definition that covers unit >>>>>>> testing, >>>>>>> functional testing, integration testing, system testing, and >>>>>>> acceptance >>>>>>> testing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3 - System tests: >>>>>>> - "verifies that all elements mesh properly and that overall >>>>>>> system >>>>>>> function and performance is achieved." [6] >>>>>>> - "involves integrating components to create a version of the >>>>>>> system and >>>>>>> then testing the integrated system. System testing checks that >>>>>>> components are compatible, interact correctly, and transfer >>>>>>> the right >>>>>>> data at the right time across their interfaces." [7] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The tests implemented inside the QEMU "acceptance" directory depend on >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> software completely assembled and, sometimes, on other elements, like >>>>>>> operating >>>>>>> system images. In this case, the proposal here is to rename the current >>>>>>> "acceptance" directory to "system." >>>>>> >>>>>> Are user-mode tests using Avocado also system tests? >>>>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg782505.html >>>>> >>>>> We've indeed got the problem that the word "system" is a little bit >>>>> overloaded in the context of QEMU. We often talk about "system" when >>>>> referring to the qemu-softmmu-xxx emulators (in contrast to the linux-user >>>>> emulator binaries). For example, the "--disable-system" switch of the >>>>> configure script, or the "build-system" and "check-system" jobs in the >>>>> .gitlab-ci.yml file ... thus this could get quite confusing in the >>>>> .gitlab-ci.yml file afterwards. >>>> >>>> I agree with you here. After I made the changes to the code, I noticed >>>> QEMU has the "system" word spread all over the place. That may confuse >>>> people looking at the "system tests" without much interaction with >>>> software testing terminology. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> So I think renaming "acceptance" to "system" is especially ok if we only >>>>> keep the "softmmu"-related tests in that folder... would it maybe make >>>>> sense >>>>> to add the linux-user related tests in a separate folder called >>>>> tests/user/ >>>>> instead, Philippe? And we should likely rename the current build-system >>>>> and >>>>> check-system jobs in our gitlab-CI to build-softmmu and check-softmmu or >>>>> so? >>>>> >>>> >>>> As I mentioned in Philippe's reply, those tests are still considered >>>> system tests because system testing is the software built and >>>> interacting with external test artifacts in software engineering. >>>> >>>>> Alternatively, what about renaming the "acceptance" tests to "validation" >>>>> instead? That word does not have a duplicated definition in the context of >>>>> QEMU yet, so I think it would be less confusing. >>>> >>>> While at the beginning of your reply, I started thinking if >>>> "validation" would cause less confusion for the QEMU project. Although >>>> validation testing is a broader concept inside the Verification & >>>> Validation process, encompassing unit testing, functional testing, >>>> integration testing, system testing, and acceptance testing, it may be >>>> an option for the QEMU project. >>>> >>>> While system testing would be the correct terminology to use, if it >>>> causes more confusion, using a less strict terminology, like >>>> validation testing, is valid, in my opinion. >>> >>> This works for me: >>> >>> - tests/system/softmmu >>> - tests/system/user >>> >>> Or validation, as you prefer. >> >> So what are tests/tcg if not user tests? They *mostly* test >> linux-user emulation but of course we have softmmu tests in there as >> well. > > I expect a tests/tcg/ to check a specific TCG feature, which doesn't > have to be user-mode specific (IIRC Xtensa does some sysemu checks). > Also, you control the compiler toolchain, flags, etc... so you can > adapt for a specific feature bit to test, use kludges and so on. Well I won't say there are things that couldn't be tested elsewhere. I think the initial record/replay tests are probably replaceable by the acceptance/whatever tests - and possibly the gdbstub tests as well. > I expect tests in tests/system/ (user/softmmu) to user real-world > binaries, which we aren't modifying. Sometime non-public/released > compiler toolchain has been used. LTP binaries? > > See for example the test referred tests the bFLT loader (beside > testing userland Linux binary for Cortex-M). > > Another example is the Sony PlayStation2 binary testing the > O32 ABI and multiple opcodes from the TX79 SIMD core: > https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg782493.html > > Personally I'm not interested in writing a test for a loader or > multiple opcodes when we have pre-built binaries. For the opcodes > coverage I'd use a TCG plugin to confirm the opcodes have been > used. > > If you think these tests belong to tests/tcg/, I am OK to put > them they, but I don't think adding the Avocado buildsys > machinery to the already-complex tests/tcg/ Makefiles is going > to help us... No I wasn't advocating that - it was more a comment on the naming of things. -ETOOMUCHFRIDAYBIKESHEDDING... > > Regards, > > Phil. -- Alex Bennée
